On Sun, Aug 03, 2025 at 03:14:38PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Sun, Aug 03, 2025 at 05:07:10PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 03, 2025 at 01:44:29PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > MD5 is insecure, > > > > Really? Have you found an attack? Can you explain it to the rest of > > the world? > > > > MD5 is not recommended for future cryptographic purposes, there have > > been some collission "attacks" on it (quotes because such a thing is > > never an attack at all, merely an indication that not all is well with > > it, somewhere in the future an actual vulnerability might be found). > > > > Since there are newer, better, *cheaper* alternatives available, of > > course you should not use MD5 for anything new anymore. But claiming it > > is insecure is FUD. > > Many attacks, including practical attacks, have been found on MD5 over > the past few decades. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5
There is no new information on that page. There are no practical attacks mentioned there, either, just some collission things (which never can be practical attacks for most applications). > > > This commit removes the PowerPC optimized MD5 code. > > > > Why? It would help to have real arguments for it! > > Sure, check out the commit message which mentioned multiple reasons why > maintaining this code is not worthwhile. Of course I have read that, but that information went missing, if you intended to provide it :-( You are replacing a known-working target implementation by a lower performance generic implementation. But is that one known-working at all? Does it come with tests? Was it tested to have the same outputs as the existing thing, maybe? Just on a few inputs maybe. We were not told anything like that. Segher
